Moral Maze

One moment in the Olympics opening ceremony in Paris clearly touched a nerve: the tableau of mostly drag queens believed to be parodying Da Vinci’s ‘Last Supper’. Organisers have since denied this was the intention and apologised for the offense caused. Many commentators, including non-believers, declared it “blasphemous”, and “a denigration of Western culture”. While others, Christians among them, considered that response to be an over-reaction. Stepping back from the immediate and perhaps predicable outrage drawn along culture war lines, is the deeper question of what we consider to be ‘sacred’ and ‘profane’ in a largely secular Western society. What, if anything, is sacred? Does the idea only make sense in relation to the concept of God? Does it have a moral function or is it more about personal spirituality? Maybe nothing is sacred, since categorising something as such puts it beyond scrutiny? Or can the concept be widened, even secularised, to take in, for example, the idea of ‘profaning’ the natural world or hollowing out the things we hold to be of value by turning them into commercial transactions? Are the concepts of ‘sacred’ and ‘profane’ still important? And if so, what role do they have in the 21st century? Producer: Dan Tierney Assistant producer: Ruth PurserPanel: Anne McElvoy Giles Fraser Ash Sarkar Tim StanleyWitnesses: Melanie McDonagh Andrew Copson Fergus Butler-Gallie Francis Young

The Modern Olympics were founded in 1896 by a Parisian with serious moral principles . Pierre De Coubertin even made up a word for it: Olympism: ‘a way of life based on the joy of effort ..and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles. He thought that sports at an international level could foster respect and peace between nations. This week as the Games get underway in De Coubertin’s city, athletes have been meeting to do just that, talk about the role that sport plays in building bridges. But how much does the modern games live up to these highminded ideals? For detractors, it’s a bloated megagames, always billions over overbudget that displaces communities and marginalises the excluded. What about nationalism and the place of the politics in the competition? The way De Coubertin conceived the idea with nations competing for international glory, means it’s impossible to put nationalism and politics aside. He insisted it was individuals, not countries in competition but the medal tables tell a different story. And the Olympics has often been the battleground to show the triumph of one ideology over another, particularly during the Cold War. Does the Olympics really promote peace as it’s goals suggest or is just ‘war minus the shooting’ as George Orwell wrote. Do the Olympics cause more harm than good? WITNESSES: Dr Shakiba Moghadam, Dora Pallis, Prof David Case Large, Prof David Papineau PANELLISTS:Giles Fraser, Anne McElvoy,Ash Sarkar, Mona Siddiqui Presenter: Michael Buerk Producer: Catherine Murray Assistant Producer: Ruth Purser Editor Tim Pemberton

The podcast dives into the dark realities of political violence and its roots in today's toxic discourse. It questions the implications of tribal politics and the alarming rise in threats against politicians. With insights from experts, the discussion highlights the psychological toll on public figures and how social media exacerbates hostility. Can we promote civility while keeping political passion alive? The conversation explores innovative solutions, such as citizen assemblies, to foster constructive dialogue in an increasingly polarized environment.

Debates on when older individuals should step down in politics and work, considering societal biases and capabilities. Discussions on ageism, wisdom, and power dynamics between generations in leadership roles. Exploration of the impact of age on social media and societal values. Emphasis on accountability, performance evaluations, and redefining age-related issues in a rapidly changing world.

Exploring the complex relationship between history and modern values, the podcast discusses the role of historical figures like Virginia Woolf, the purpose of studying history, and the use of history as a tool in today's societal battles. With a diverse panel of experts and insightful debates, the podcast sheds light on the multifaceted nature of history and its impact on shaping our world.

Discussing the debate between price and value in arts and culture, questioning the ethics of selling experiences, the role of government funding in ensuring access for all, and the societal significance of cultural events. Panelists explore the impact of state subsidies, career choices, and the bias in measuring arts success, raising questions about the necessity of public funding for the arts.

Exploring the changing trends in funerals, the podcast discusses the rise of direct cremations and DIY celebrations. It questions the impact on human dignity and religious traditions, as well as the influence of technology on grieving. The debate delves into the significance of farewell rituals, fear of technology, and the evolving perspectives on death in society.

Exploring the challenges of democracy in addressing climate change, the influence of media moguls on politicians, and the significance of Citizens' Assemblies in decision-making processes.

Debates on forgiveness and justice, like the Legacy Act in Northern Ireland. No-blame culture in the NHS for learning from mistakes. The moral dilemma of forgiving serious wrongdoing. How forgiveness can lead to greater honesty and openness. The intersection of blame, justice, and societal incentives.

Many people seem to be going off the idea of work. In the UK there are more than nine million people who are "economically inactive". Some are unemployed, some are students, others are not actively looking for a job or available to start work. There’s no shortage of jobs, but people are choosing not to take them. Many people decided not to return to work after the Covid lockdowns. They reduced their working hours or took early retirement, choosing the golf course over the office. For some, it’s a moral failure that so many are economically inactive. But why do we ascribe such virtue to the idea of work? Politicians endlessly refer to "hard working families", perhaps inducing a sense of entitlement among workers, but in the process stoking resentment against those who don't work. Of course the economy relies on work - the wheels only turn when enough people are employed and paying tax. Some believe the benefits system is to blame - if it's too comfortable not to work - then why bother? But there’s also the broader societal shift where people choose to work less, or not at all and live a more modest but perhaps less stressful life. Is this a laudable position, where people prioritise wellbeing over wealth and status, or a selfish one that denies the collective responsibility we all bear to contribute to society, through labour and taxes? The personal value of work might feel clearer if your job is rewarding and well paid, but less so if you’re on a low income. What is the moral value of work? Presenter: Michael Buerk Producer: Jonathan Hallewell Assistant Producer: Ruth Purser Editor: Tim Pemberton